15 Dec 2009
CHAN KIN SHING SONNY v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- CHAN KIN SHING SONNY v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV360/2005
The applications for leave were refused because the amounts assessed by the IDT under s23(1)(b) SIDO are not liquidated proprietary claims and therefore do not engage s22(1)(a) HKCFAO; moreover the grounds advanced did not meet the high threshold for leave under s22(1)(b), involved issues bound by Court of Final Appeal precedent or were otherwise hopeless, so leave was properly refused.